Texas Parks and Wildlife CommissionConservation Committee

Aug. 25, 2004

BE IT REMEMBERED, that
heretofore on the 25th day
of August, 2004, there came
to be heard matters under
the regulatory authority
of the Texas Parks and Wildlife
Commission, in the Commission
Hearing Room of the Texas
Parks and Wildlife Department
Headquarters Complex, to
wit:

APPEARANCES:

THE TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE
COMMISSION:

Joseph B.C. Fitzsimons,
San Antonio, Texas,
Chairman

J. Robert Brown,
El Paso, Texas

Ned S. Holmes, Houston,
Texas

Alvin L. Henry,
Houston, Texas

Peter M. Holt, San
Antonio, Texas

Philip Montgomery,
Dallas Texas

John D. Parker, Lufkin,
Texas

Donato D. Ramos, Laredo,
Texas

Mark E. Watson, Jr.,
San Antonio, Texas

THE TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE
DEPARTMENT:

Robert L. Cook, Executive
Director, and other personnel
of the Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department

P R O C E E D I N G S

COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY:
The Conservation Committee,
the first order of business
is the approval of committee
minutes. They've already
been distributed. Is there
a motion for approval?

COMMISSIONER HOLMES: So
move.

COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY:
A second?

COMMISSIONER RAMOS: Second.

COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY:
Motion by Commissioner Holmes,
second by Commissioner Ramos.
All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes.)

COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY:
All opposed? Passes unanimously.

Mr. Chairman, Committee,
Item Number 1 of the Chairman's
Charges.

Mr. Cook.

MR. COOK: Thank you, sir.
Just a couple of real brief
notes. One, on our science
review, I — as you
know, this is something
been important to me for
a long time. The external
review of inland and coastal
fisheries science-based
assessment programs by a
team of science, scientists,
assembled by the American
Fisheries Society has recently
begun.

The review team has reviewed
all pertinent manuals and
documents provided by the
two divisions. From those
documents the team derived
discussion points used during
a site visit with staff
from both divisions, along
with executive leadership.

The team leader, Dr. Rich
Noble, reports the team
is on track to complete
the first project milestones
due at the end of August.
Final report of the science
review of these two divisions
and their work is due at
the end of January 2005.

I'll also report to you
that the Wildlife Division
and the State Parks Division,
who's also going under a
very, very similar review
by the Wildlife Management
Institute. A team of folks
put together by the Wildlife
Management Institute, completely
independent, completely
from the outside, doing
that same thing — looking
at our procedures, our manuals,
how we do our work, what
we do with that data after
we collect that information,
how it's collected, how
it's used.

Their final — they've
also been down for a couple
of visits reviewing all
those documents, talking
with people, and their final
report is also due January
31.

In addition, I mentioned
to Doc — I asked Doc
this morning about we are
just initiating kind of
a stake holder review in
our bay and estuary studies.
As you know, the National
Academy of Sciences is deeply
involved in the review of
our instream flow study
methods and mechanisms and
all that.

And we should be getting
that information — I
believe that report — in
October. So we're — and
we're initiating the stakeholder
process in our bay and estuary
studies in Galveston Bay.
So we are really rolling
in this science review.

Got great people, some
of the best, absolute best,
looking at how we do our
science, how we utilize
that information, is there
a better way, comparing
us to other similar organizations,
and I think it's going to
go very well.

Under seagrass conservation,
the Coastal Fisheries Division
has been working with a
seagrass conservation task
force to review the current
seagrass conservation zones,
the effectiveness of ongoing
conservation initiatives,
and any needs for modifications.

On today's committee agenda,
Agenda Number 2, Dr. McKinney
will update you on these
efforts.

With me is Dr. Bill Harvey
who will be presenting — making
the presentation today,
so I'll let him get started.

DR. HARVEY: Thank you,
Larry.

Members, Mr. Chairman,
I'm Bill Harvey. What we'd
like to do today is provide
you a briefing in this item
on the seagrass conservation
efforts, particularly as
these relate to propeller
scarring, and to request
permission of the Chairman
to publish a rule-making
proposal for the purpose
of seeking public comment
regarding management of
boat traffic in sensitive
seagrass areas.

As a quick background,
there are five species of
seagrass in Texas. The species
of particular concern to
us is a species called turtlegrass.
Very slow-growing species,
about five to eight years
once it's been disturbed.

And this particular seagrass
species is characteristic
of stable ecosystem. Seagrass
is — all seagrasses,
all types of species, are
very important as nursery
areas. There's some very
persuasive research which
suggests that high survival,
for example, of spotted
sea trout, red drum larvae,
and fingerlings occur in
and around seagrass beds.

They're very important
for substraits, stabilization
and water clarity, and most
importantly, perhaps, at
least for the purposes of
this briefing, they're especially
susceptible to propeller
scarring because they grow
in very shallow water.

In 1999 the Department
published a seagrass conservation
plan for Texas, and this
was one part of a larger
comprehensive plan. It was
directed in Chapter 14 of
the Parks and Wildlife code
regarding state-owned wetlands,
inland state-owned wetlands
conservation plan.

Under the authority granted
in Chapter 81 of the code,
the Commission established
the Redfish Bay and Nine-mile
Hole State scientific areas
in June 2000 for a five-year
period to study different
mechanisms for managing
and evaluating seagrasses.

The Redfish Bay State scientific
area is located within a
triangle roughly bounded
by Port Aransas at the apex,
Rockport through a base
at Aransas Pass to Ingleside
and then again back to Port
Aransas. Again, this is
the midcoast area just a
little bit north of Corpus
Christi in part of the Aransas
Bay system.

Within that, we established
three voluntary prop-up
zones where we ask anglers,
boaters, to raise their
propeller as they entered
these areas and to traverse
them either through drifting,
poling, or using the trolling
motor.

We also hoped that we would
have good voluntary compliance
with these no prop areas,
and we based that on extensive
education effort. We assigned
every one of these areas
and also areas close by
which were shallow water
areas to help direct boat
traffic through them.

Our Communications Division
was very helpful in helping
us with press releases,
video news releases, magazine
articles, and in producing
the 20-minute boating video,
which we've given each of
you a copy today.

The Coastal Bend Bay and
Estuaries Program produced
several thousand bay-users'
guides which outlined the
importance of seagrass and
also the location of these
voluntary prop-up zones
and helped us distribute
those.

We produced maps at each
of the boat ramps in the
area which showed the areas
in question. All our paddle
trail maps also included
the prop-up zone, so we
feel like we did a good
job in getting the word
out about the importance
of these resources and the
importance of operating
boats responsibly in them.

Four years into this project,
the voluntary prop-up zones
have not been very effective.
In fact, over the last three
years of monitoring, we
have seen no compliance,
zero compliance, with voluntary
provisions for people who
actually enter those zones
either to run through them
or to fish them.

Our aerial photography,
and we'll show you some
of that as we go along,
is very persuasive in suggesting
that prop-scarring is persistent
and that it is cumulative
in impacts. In other words,
the scars that appeared
several years ago are still
there today, and it appears
that these are accumulating.

Also, research has demonstrated
that restoration — in
other words, trying to go
back and replant seagrasses
in existing prop-scars — is
not feasible.

I'm going to show you a
little bit of aerial photography.
This is from one of the
three voluntary prop-up
zones. It's located at the
intersection of the Gulf
Intercostal Waterway and
Aransas Channel, just a
little bit east of Calm-down
Harbor in Aransas Pass.

I've indicated the site
here as Site 1, and we're
going to show you an aerial
photograph of that. This
is a 2.4-acre site in the
Terminal Flat, and this
is a 2002 aerial photograph.
All the identifiable prop
scars are on this slide
in purple.

Again, this suggests that
the prop-scarring is cumulative,
and we can identify 65 — at
least 65, perhaps more — identifiable
prop scars in this 2.4-acre
area, some of which are
over 400 feet long.

And I'd like to point out
that this particular slide,
which is this graphic in
terms of the fragmentation
of the seagrass bed, this
is not a typical of Terminal
Flat. In other words, we've
not picked one area that's
particularly worse just
to show you.

We scanned this entire
flat. This is typical of
the entirety of that area.
Some of the things we've
heard the last four years
is that prop-scars recover
quickly once they're put
into place. Again, in this
slide, all the purple scars
are at least 12 months old;
in other words, scars that
we could identify in our
2001 aerial photography
and were still present in
2002.

And again, this suggests
that the scars are persistent.
In other words, they are
cumulative. We also hear
that — we've heard
that these voluntary zones
work, but again, this 2.4-acre
parcel of the Terminal Flat,
all the red scars here occurred
between 2001 and 2002.

In other words, as we look
at the 2001 aerial photography
in this area, these scars
are not present. In 2002
they are. So fundamentally,
this proposal would change
these voluntary areas to
mandatory no-prop areas
for a period of five years
and that we would during
that time continue to focus
on habitat, research regarding
seagrasses there, and as
Larry would say, the functional
mechanics of how we would
do this.

In other words, what's
the best way to put signs
to — in these areas
to direct boaters through
there. What's the best way
to get the information out.
What's the best way to help
our law enforcement officers
enforce this.

COMMISSIONER BROWN: You're
talking about only this
area, this area right here?

DR. HARVEY: Yes, sir. Three
of them.

COMMISSIONER BROWN: Are
we going to —

DR. HARVEY: I'll show you
each of these as we go along.
The first of these areas
is an area that's called
Estes Cove. It's the northernmost
extent of Estes Flats. We
would propose that the more
south end easterly of these
two coves be set aside as
a seagrass conservation
area such that use of propellers
in this zone would not be
allowed, with the exception
of a running lane along
the northwest shoreline
which would allow people
to drift into this flat
and then run out.

With a prevailing southeast
wind, you can come almost
anywhere along the boundary
of this particular area,
drift into it, with a separate
running lane there which
would allow people to exit.

Currently, the second of
these two coves is a voluntary
prop-up zone, and we would
propose to remove any sort
of restriction or any kind
of designation for that
area whatsoever.

At the Terminal Flat, which
is probably the largest
and most substantially-fragmented
turtlegrass bed in this
area of Redfish Bay, again,
at the Intercostal Waterway
and Aransas Channel intersection
we would propose that the
entirety of this area be
set aside as a seagrass
conservation area and mandatory
no-prop zone with two running
lanes, which would allow,
again, access into and out
of this particular area
with the least threat to
the existent seagrasses
there.

Brown & Root Flat,
which is located just south
of the Highway 361 Causeway
which connects Aransas Pass
and Port Aransas, has also
a very large and extensive
turtlegrass flats, particularly
on the southern end of Brown & Root
and around the margins.

We would propose that these
areas be set aside as mandatory
no-prop — as a mandatory
no-prop zone. However, this
sort of confirmation of
Brown & Root Flat allows
access from the south and
from the north, and it's
deep enough in the center
that one can navigate this
flat effectively without
any substantial threat to
the seagrass resources there.

So — and if we had
designed a flat to set up
to allow people to come
in, operate there and then
run out, Brown & Root
would certainly be it. And
then we would maintain this
area as a running zone.

So the areas — only
kind of the periphery would
be set aside as mandatory
non-prop zones. We would
propose no changes to the
existing Nine-Mile Hole
State scientific area or
to the Lighthouse Lakes
area, which is part of the
Redfish Bay State scientific
area.

Although there are constituent
interests in both of these
sites who are interested
in developing long-term
management plans. We'd mention,
too, that the State scientific
area designation for both
Redfish Bay and Nine-Mile
Hole sunsets in 2005. That
was part of the provisions
when these were established
by the Commission in 2000.

COMMISSIONER BROWN: The
other question I have, because
I've fished Nine-Mile Hole
a lot but also have a jet-drive
boat — now, I think
the way that the definition
is, it's a power boat. In
other words, if I run in
there in a no-run zone with
my jet drive, I'm still
in violation. Is that —

DR. HARVEY: That's correct.
Yes, sir.

COMMISSIONER BROWN: I mean,
so it's not prop because
I don't have a prop.

DR. HARVEY: That's correct.

COMMISSIONER BROWN: You
know — so it's a power
boat running in the no-run
zone?

DR. HARVEY: When the Commission
established that, Commissioner
Brown, that provision was
put into place. And really,
the idea there was a little
bit different. The Nine-Mile
Hole State scientific area
was more an experiment to
see if by controlling boat
traffic, you could actually
improve the fishing experience.

COMMISSIONER BROWN: The
other thing about Nine-Mile
Hole is there's probably
25 people that fish it.
I mean, it's a long way
down there. It's basically
unenforceable. I mean, you
know, from a manpower standpoint,
I don't know how we could
enforce it.

So anyway, I have a lot
of questions about that
but —

DR. McKINNEY: As a matter
of fact, we — when
we laid out these proposals
to go back and look at it,
we were going to drop the
Nine-Mile Hole altogether
because for the reason you
talked about. We couldn't
do any research down there.
It was too far, especially
with limited resources we
had, we just couldn't do
the research work that we're
doing in the other places,
because you remember that
these areas are still research
type.

I mean, we're still kind
of learning on these things.
So we were going to drop
that and then not do it.
Well, we had a group of
folks come up and say, No,
we want to keep that Nine-Mile
Hole as it is. We like it.

There have been either
three or five citations
given down there. One has
gone forward with it. Our
law enforcement guys, in
talking to them, they seem
to work with it fine. What
we told these folks are
that, Look, you guys have — you
have a couple options here.

One is that if you want
to put together a research
proposal, go to UTMSI, the
University of Texas or A&M,
and come back with a research
proposal that you'll fund
and they'll do. It's a legitimate
piece of research. We can
always learn some things
there.

Then bring that and lay
it in front of the Commission.
That's a proposal that certainly
we could consider for an
extension of that period
of time for five years or
whatever, whatever they
want to do that.

Or — which they brought
up, they have said they
may go to the Legislature
to seek designation there,
and that's their deal because
we have no authority to
take that kind of action.
The State scientific areas
are for protection of habitat
and doing research. That's
what we're interested in.

If we ever wanted to take
these things further because
they were needed for some
reason, like a conflict
or things, it would take
other actions. So that's
basically what we told them,
and we also told the group — there's
a group that Dr. Harvey
alluded to in Lighthouse
Lakes that were interested
in doing a management plan
there.

And we basically said,
Look, our focus right now
is on — as we've showed
in the slide, is on habitat,
the turtlegrass. We're going
to do work in there to protect
that particularly. We do
want to look at that kind
of function of mechanics
and how you do that type
of thing.

But it would be interesting,
because we're going to have
to deal with conflicts in
the future of resource users.
We're doing it now in other
places, but as I told them,
If you — if those
of you who are interested
in that Lighthouse Lakes,
you get together with the
duck hunters and the other
users and came up with a
plan, back to us with a
plan of how you could make
best use of that area and
not get into conflicts,
not run over each other
with boats and make it easier,
our Commission would listen
to that. I'm sure they would.

So y'all go forward and
do it. You have until September
2005, when these areas sunset — which
all sunset means is that
we lose — the Commission
loses its rule-making capability
to take rules in those particular
areas. That's all it is.
That's where we are.

COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS:
What's the status of the
research you did in Nine-Mile
Hole?

DR. McKINNEY: Well, we
never got much of anything
done there, because as we
were saying, this was right
when the budget cuts just
came out. I lost my seagrass
coordinator. We got into
job freezes and all that.

And so frankly, we really
didn't do — we didn't
do anything down there except
establish them. We worked
a little bit with the National
Seashore. They established
some areas down there, too,
but basically, we just let
it set there. Now, the function
we —

COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS:
What's the status — well,
what research is there to
show the benefit of the
no-prop in the seagrass,
as far as restoration and
habitat?

DR. McKINNEY: Well, of
course, keep in mind that
the mandatory thing there,
that was not one of our
seagrass areas that we were
dealing with. People wanted
to try that just to see
if it could help fishing,
so that was really the folks
that — the fishing
folks. We didn't do any —

COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS:
But you don't have any data
necessarily to support the
benefit, Bill? Is that right?

DR. HARVEY: In the Nine-Mile
Hole, Mr. Chairman?

COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS:
Yes.

DR. HARVEY: No, because
again, the Nine-Mile Hole
really was not about protection
of seagrasses. That's about
36 square miles of the most
unpredictable [indiscernible]
habitat on earth. I mean,
it's there one day and it's
gone the next.

COMMISSIONER BROWN: It
comes and goes without any
explanation as to why it
comes and goes. Is that
comment correct?

DR. HARVEY: You're right,
Commissioner Brown. Two
years ago, if you're familiar
with the Hole, almost that
whole area north of the
203 Channel was just luxuriant
with seagrass, and it's
all gone. And the area south
of there, which had none,
is luxuriant now. So —

COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS:
And the Lighthouse Lakes,
for instance, do you have
much data about the improvement
in habitat?

DR. HARVEY: The Lighthouse
Lakes is an interesting
area in that. It's almost
self-regulating. It tends
to be so shallow most or
much of the year, it's very
difficult to enter there.
There's not a lot of prop-scarring
in Lighthouse Lakes, although
there's some.

The real issue there is
it's a very small kind of
confined area that has grown
tremendous in popularity
in the last four years since
we established those paddling
trails there, and now —

COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS:
It's made for kayaking.

DR. HARVEY: It's perfect
for it.

COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS:
We don't want it mandatory.
Do we have another mandatory
that's had any real —

DR. HARVEY: Trial.

MR. COOK: — trial
as far as grade. I mean,
some — it's hard to
make policy decisions when
you haven't tried it where
you're doing the research.

COMMISSIONER BROWN: We
tried the voluntary —

DR. McKINNEY: That's the
problem is that you guys — what
was affecting us, we tried
it and it wasn't effective,
so we have no results.

COMMISSIONER BROWN: The
no-prop zone is really has
to be defined, because you
can end up a lot of times
violating the law because
those things get knocked
down. You don't even know
where it is, and you're — not
intentionally, you're trying
to be compliant, but without
somehow truly marking and
defining and maintaining
that, you can have issues
there.

DR. HARVEY: That's correct.

DR. McKINNEY: That's the
mechanical function issue
that we're talking about.
We've got to work with our
law enforcement to figure
out can you do it, is it
possible, how do you do
it. That's what all this
is about.

COMMISSIONER RAMOS: And
even from an enforcement
standpoint, it seems to
me that if you have areas
that are that remote, and
if you don't enforce it,
then you encourage people
just — they just ignore
it.

But my question is if you
had — if you actually
ran in one of these areas
where you shouldn't, what's
the fine or what's the downside
for the angler?

DR. McKINNEY: Class C misdemeanor.

COMMISSIONER RAMOS: Class
C misdemeanor?

DR. McKINNEY: That's what
it has been in the mandatory
area we have now.

COMMISSIONER RAMOS: Is
it possible in these areas
to have defined corridors
to where you can still access
it or —

DR. McKINNEY: Those are
the run lanes we were talking
about to allow that. We
try — want to try
to set it up so that someone
can go in there and have
a 20-minute drift. They
don't have — you don't
want to have someone have
to drift through there for
30 minutes if they don't
have a troll or a pole,
so you try to approach it
that way so you have a reasonable
time.

COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS:
Would you describe to the
Commissioners the seagrass
advisory group, the task
force, I guess, is right.

DR. HARVEY: Well, initially,
when we began this process
1999-2000, we sought to
try to get representatives
from every identifiable
sort of user group who had
a stake in that issue. We
worked with them to put
together the first initial
shot at this, which included
the voluntary prop-up zones.

As time goes on, as that
process continued, most
of those folks just kind
of quit coming. We re-formed
it again with more specific
eye on this particular issue
in the early part of the
summer. It's made up of
recreational anglers, people
who represent the boating
industry — actually,
boat dealers — recreational
fishermen, commercial guides.

Again, we try to have it
be represented — or
to represent the different
interests that were directly
related to this particular
issue in this area.

COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS:
And you're getting good
participation? Have you
considered recommendations
on this?

DR. McKINNEY: We met with
them last Monday night,
laid these proposals out,
and we had no one that spoke
in opposition to it at all.
Now, that doesn't mean they
won't, but they didn't.

COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS:
Consider —

DR. McKINNEY: We gave them
this very presentation we
gave you today and said,
This is what we'd like to
lay on the table. And, you
know, again, it's going
to be open for comment.
We have them organized or
not and it's — there'll
be pluses and minuses.

There are already a few
individuals on there who — they're
concerned about it, but —

COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS:
They're considering this,
and they're going to make
a recommendation or comments
or what?

DR. HARVEY: My understanding
is they'll make comment.

DR. McKINNEY: The task
force we considered, their
job is basically done until
the Commission acts on whatever
that proposal is. Then we
would, depending on your
action, they could continue.
We'd like to continue them
or some group to help us
monitor it over time to
see how it works if it were
to go forward.

COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY:
Commissioner Watson's got
a question.

COMMISSIONER WATSON: You
know, if you put these regulations
in and you have mandatory
no-prop zones in all that
area, what impacts is that
going to have on our law
enforcement down there?
Looks like they're pretty
busy right now.

DR. McKINNEY: Well, it's —

COMMISSIONER WATSON: I
think it's a great idea.

DR. McKINNEY: — no,
it's like any of our fishers'
regs that we work with.
We try to work and see how
it works. They step up and
do it, you know, because
it's important. That's all
I can tell you. It does
add to their workload. There's
no doubt about it.

DR. HARVEY: These areas,
Mr. Watson, you know, are
located probably either
the first or perhaps — I
want to say second most
highly trafficked area on
the Gulf Coast.

COMMISSIONER WATSON: I'm
very familiar with it.

DR. HARVEY: And you know,
our wardens are — do
a great job out there, working
weekend, doing water safety
and checks and checking
for baggings, of course,
and in talking to the wardens
on their round there as
we sort of thought this
through, their response
is, Hey, we're going to
enforce the law, and we're
out there, and we'll enforce
it when we see them.

DR. McKINNEY: It's kind
of like — I mean,
this is one of these analogous
situations. You see this
last slide up on there,
it's like driving in riverbeds
and such things. It's the
same type of issue, same
type of law enforcement
types of things.

It's — they've done
a wonderful job for us in
riverbed things that we
haven't had — you
know, that's a lot more
riverbeds and there's a
lot big — a great
responsibility for law enforcement
there, and they've got enough
respect to know how to deal
with this business that
they've made great progress,
and we hope they will be
able to do this this year
as well.

It's a tough issue, and
as we — and I'll steal
a line from one of the groups,
one of our — one of
the reporters, David Sykes,
I think, actually is — I
think he put a great question.
That's what we ask our seagrass
task force guys and basically
says, If you — some
folks they're concerned
about it because they're
out there.

You know, if you own this
piece of property, if you
own that square that you're
looking now behind us — if
you owned that, would you
let anything — would
you let this happen to it?
And universally, it's, No.
I mean, no one would let
this happen to anything
that they owned.

And that's what we're talking
about here, but the pressure
is going to —

COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS:
You have a picture there
of the riverbeds. I think
if your point being the
analogy is that when it
was the riverbeds, we clearly
saw something had to be
done.

COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY:
Okay. Any further discussion?

Thank you for a good presentation.

Bob, anything else before
this committee?

MR. COOK: No, sir.

COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY:
Okay. Hearing no — I'd
like to announce that pursuant
to requirements of Chapter
551, Government code —

MR. McCARTY: We need permission
to publish that item in
the Register.

COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY:
Oh. I'm off the script.
It's not on the script.
What's my line?

COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS:
What's my line?

COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY:
Well, I'm — they have
it on the agenda but there's —

MR. COOK: Placed in the
Register for public comment.

COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY:
I agree with what he said,
and I'll repeat ‘‘

DR. McKINNEY: This is not
an action item. You cannot
take action. This is strictly
action [indiscernible] Chairman
permission to publish these
as rules ‘‘ a
proposed rule for public
comment —

COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY:
Okay.

DR. McKINNEY: — and
action when —

COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY:
We'd like to peruse these
rules before we comment.
If there's no further discussion,
we'll move on.

Are we all right, Gene?

MR. McCARTY: Yes, sir.

COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY:
Okay. Now, I'd like to announce
that pursuant to the requirements
of Chapter 551 of the Government
code, referred to as the
Open Meetings Law, executive
session will be held at
this time for the purpose
of consideration of Section
551.072, the Texas Open
Meetings Act regarding real
estate matters and General
Counsel advice.

We'll adjourn upstairs.

(Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m.,
the meeting was concluded.)

C E R T I F I C A T E

MEETING OF: Texas Parks
and Wildlife Commission

Conservation Committee

LOCATION: Austin, Texas

DATE: August 25, 2004

I do hereby certify that
the foregoing pages, numbers
1 through 26, inclusive,
are the true, accurate,
and complete transcript
prepared from the verbal
recording made by electronic
recording by Penny Bynum
before the Texas Parks and
Wildlife Commission.